Ranka, Sagar

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by a clinical spectrum of diseases ranging from asymptomatic or mild cases to severe pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as rescue therapy in appropriate patients with COVID-19 complicated by ARDS refractory to mechanical ventilation. In this study, we review the indications, challenges, complications, and clinical outcomes of ECMO utilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Most of these patients required venovenous ECMO. Although the risk of mortality and complications is very high among patients with COVID-19 requiring ECMO, it is similar to that of non-COVID-19 patients with ARDS requiring ECMO. ECMO is a resource-intensive therapy, with an inherent risk of complications, which makes its availability limited and its use challenging in the midst of a pandemic. Well-maintained data registries, with timely reporting of outcomes and evidence-based clinical guidelines, are necessary for the careful allocation of resources and for the development of standardized utilization protocols.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely affect the outcomes in the patients of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, however there are limited data exploring such an association in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Hypothesis: AF is associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF. Methods: We included all the patients with the primary diagnosis of HFpEF from the national inpatient sample (NIS) database (2012-2014) using ICD-9 codes. Exposure of interest was AF. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), syncope, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), passive hepatic congestion, ventricular fibrillation (V fib) and flutter, ventricular assist device (VAD), AICD, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), intra-aortic balloon placement (IABP) placement and heart transplantation. Hospitalization cost was also studied. Results: Our study cohorts included 26,51,970 patients of HFpEF with AF and 37,44,101 patients of HFpEF without AF. AF cohort had more numbers of older patients and less female representation. In-hospital mortality was more in AF cohort. Similarly, the odds of SCA, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, passive hepatic congestion, Vfib and flutter, AICD and CRT placement were higher in AF cohort. The odds of syncope, AMI and AKI were lower in AF cohort as compared to non-AF cohort. While the odds of heart transplantation and VAD and IABP use remained comparable between the study cohorts, AF cohort incurred greater of cost of hospitalization. Conclusion: AF in HFpEF patients is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock and should be aggressively treated for improved outcomes.

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its association with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (EV‐TAVR).BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment for patients at prohibitive, high, or intermediate surgical risk. PAD is a significant comorbidity in the determination of surgical risk. However, data on association of PAD with outcomes after EV‐TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent EV‐TAVR between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015 were evaluated. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 51,685 patients underwent EV‐TAVR during the study period. Of these, 12,740 (24.6%) had a coexisting diagnosis of PAD. The adjusted odds for in‐hospital mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.83–1.41)], permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 0.98 (0.85–1.14)], conversion to open aortic valve replacement [OR 1.05 (0.49–2.26)], or acute myocardial infarction [OR 1.31(0.99–1.71)] were not different in patients with versus without PAD. However, patients with PAD had greater adjusted odds of vascular complications [OR 1.80 (1.50–2.16)], major bleeding [OR 1.20 (1.09–1.34)], acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR 1.19 (1.05–1.36)], cardiac complications [aOR 1.21 (1.01–1.44)], and stroke [OR 1.39(1.10–1.75)] compared with patients without PAD. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for patients with PAD [7.23 (0.14) days vs. 7.11 (0.1) days, p < 0.001].ConclusionOf patients undergoing EV‐TAVR, ~25% have coexisting PAD. PAD was not associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality but was associated with higher risk of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, stroke, cardiac complications, and longer LOS.